[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 230 (Tuesday, December 1, 1998)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 66011-66013] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 98-31960] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 35 [Docket No. RM93-24-001; Order No. 600-A] Revision of Fuel Cost Adjustment Clause Regulation Relating to Fuel Purchases From Company-Owned or Controlled Source; Order Denying Rehearsing and Other Relief Issued November 24, 1998. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Final rule; Order denying rehearing and other relief. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) denies a request, filed October 21, 1998, by Pacific Gas and Electric Company, for clarification, reconsideration or rehearing of the Final Rule, issued September 21, 1998, in which the Commission amended its regulations to state that where a regulatory body has jurisdiction over the price of fuel purchased from a company-owned or controlled source, and exercises that jurisdiction to approve such price, the Commission will presume, subject to rebuttal, that the cost of fuel so purchased is reasonable and includable in the fuel adjustment clause. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne W. Miller, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the General Counsel, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208-0466. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission also provides all interested persons an opportunity to inspect or copy the contents of this document during normal business hours in the Public Reference Room at 888 First Street, NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. The Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS) provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission. CIPS can be accessed via Internet through FERC's Homepage (http://www.ferc.fed.us) using the CIPS Link or the Energy Information Online icon. The full text of this document will be available on CIPS in ASCII and WordPerfect 6.1 format. CIPS is also available through the Commission's [[Page 66012]] electronic bulletin board service at no charge to the user and may be accessed using a personal computer with a modem by dialing 202-208- 1397, if dialing locally, or 1-800-856-3920, if dialing long distance. To access CIPS, set your communications software to 19200, 14400, 12000, 9600, 7200, 4800, 2400, or 1200 bps, full duplex, no parity, 8 data bits and 1 stop bit. User assistance is available at 202-208-2474 or by E-mail to [email protected]. This document is also available through the Commission's Records and Information Management System (RIMS), an electronic storage and retrieval system of documents submitted to and issued by the Commission after November 16, 1981. Documents from November 1995 to the present can be viewed and printed. RIMS is available in the Public Reference Room or remotely via Internet through FERC's Homepage using the RIMS link or the Energy Information Online icon. User assistance is available at 202-208-2222, or by E-mail to [email protected]. Finally, the complete text on diskette in WordPerfect format may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, RVJ International, Inc. RVJ International, Inc., is located in the Public Reference Room at 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. Before Commissioners: James J. Hoecker, Chairman; Vicky A. Bailey, William L. Massey, Linda Breathitt, and Curt Hebert, Jr. On October 21, 1998, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed a request for clarification, reconsideration or rehearing of the Final Rule, issued September 21, 1998.1 The Final Rule amended section 35.14(a)(7) of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR Sec. 35.14(a)(7) (1998), relating to fuel adjustment clauses, to state that where a regulatory body has jurisdiction over the price of fuel purchased by a utility from a company-owned or controlled source, and that regulatory body exercises that jurisdiction to approve such price, the Commission will presume, subject to rebuttal (rather than conclusively ``deem'') the cost of fuel so purchased to be reasonable and includable in the fuel adjustment clause. We deny the request for rehearing and other relief. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Revision of Fuel Cost Adjustment Clause Regulation Relating to Fuel Purchases From Company-Owned or Controlled Source, Order No. 600, 63 FR 53,085 (October 7, 1998), FERC Stats. & Regs. para. 31, 066 (1998) (Final Rule). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Background In 1993, the Commission proposed to amend section 35.14(a)(7) of the Commission's regulations, relating to fuel adjustment clauses, to state that where a regulatory body has jurisdiction over the price of fuel purchased by a utility from a company-owned or controlled source, and that regulatory body exercises that jurisdiction to approve such price, the Commission will presume, subject to rebuttal (rather than conclusively ``deem'') the cost of fuel so purchased to be reasonable and includable in the fuel adjustment clause.2 The Commission explained that the need for this amendment arises from the decision of the D.C. Circuit in Ohio Power Company v. FERC, 954 F.2d 779 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 981 (1992) (Ohio Power). In Ohio Power, among other things, the D.C. Circuit held that section 35.14(a)(7) establishes a conclusive presumption that a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)-approved price for an inter-affiliate fuel purchase is just and reasonable and, accordingly, cannot be upset by the Commission. In analyzing section 35.14(a)(7), the court focused on the meaning of the word ``deemed,'' finding that it establishes a conclusive presumption regarding the reasonableness of SEC-approved prices. The court thus rejected the Commission's position that the word ``deemed'' sets only a rebuttable presumption.3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Revision of Fuel Cost Adjustment Clause Regulation Relating to Fuel Purchases From Company-Owned or Controlled Source, 58 FR 51,259 (October 1, 1993), IV FERC Stats. & Regs. para. 32,502 (1993) (NOPR). \3\ 954 F.2d at 783-84. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a consequence, the Commission proposed to amend section 35.14(a)(7) to clearly specify only a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness, making it clear that the Commission has no intention of abdicating its statutory responsibility to independently review wholesale rates (including fuel adjustment clauses) to ensure that they are just and reasonable. The Commission noted a special need for Commission review when affiliate transactions are involved. The Commission received 12 comments in response to this NOPR; PG&E did not submit any comments. While generally in accord with (or at least neutral to) the intent of the NOPR, the commenters suggested various changes to the proposed regulation. The suggested modifications principally involved three concerns: (a) whether the relevant sentence of section 35.14(a)(7) should simply be eliminated, rather than revised to set forth a rebuttable presumption; (b) the meaning of the term ``regulatory body'' in the proposed rule; and (c) retroactivity. After reviewing and considering the comments, the Commission issued its Final Rule amending section 35.14(a)(7) in the manner initially proposed in the NOPR. As relevant here, in the Final Rule, the Commission stated that, as to challenges to affiliate fuel prices recovered through the fuel adjustment clause prior to the effective date of this rule change (November 6, 1998) (and which are not subject to an alternate ground for decision in Ohio Power), how the Commission should address such challenges is best decided in each individual case in which the issue arises, rather than generically in the abstract.4 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ FERC Stats. & Regs. para. 31,066 at 30,727. The Commission noted that the fuel adjustment clause allows public utilities to pass through to their ratepayers increases or decreases in the cost of their fuel, without having to make separate filings to reflect each change in fuel cost and without having to obtain prior Commission review of each change in fuel cost. Consequently, the Commission stated that it has sanctioned after-the-fact review and refunds in later proceedings. Without later review and the ability to order refunds, the Commission explained, overcharges collected through the fuel adjustment clause would be exempt from all scrutiny and refunds. Id. at 30,727, n.21. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- PG&E's Request PG&E requests clarification that the Commission did not intend to apply the new rule to inter-affiliate fuel purchases that occurred, and were approved by regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over the purchases, prior to the effective date of the Final Rule. If the Commission did intend to leave the door open to such retroactive application, then PG&E requests reconsideration or rehearing. PG&E contends that any retroactive application of the new rule to inter- affiliate fuel purchases before the effective date of the Final Rule exceeds the Commission's authority under the Federal Power Act (FPA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). PG&E argues that the Commission may not circumvent this prohibition by implementing a new legislative rule retroactively in case-by-case adjudications.5 Additionally, PG&E argues that, because the NOPR was [[Page 66013]] silent on potential retroactive application of the rule, retroactive application violates the APA's notice and comment procedures.6 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ PG&E maintains that the precedents cited by the Commission in footnote 21 of the Final Rule are inapplicable because in none of those cases did the Commission apply a new legislative rule retroactively in later adjudications. Instead, PG&E argues, the Commission retroactively reviewed the reasonableness of costs flowed through formula rates, applying the same regulations that were in effect at the time the costs were incurred. PG&E Request at 3. \6\ 5 U.S.C. 553 (1994). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discussion We will deny PG&E's request for clarification, reconsideration and rehearing. We disagree with PG&E that the Commission must clarify or reconsider the Final Rule at this time because of retroactivity concerns. In the Final Rule, the Commission did not state that it necessarily would take any particular action. Rather, the Commission merely stated that challenges to affiliate fuel prices recovered through the fuel adjustment clause prior to the effective date of this rule change are best decided on a case-by-case basis. When the Commission is presented with a case involving fuel adjustment clause recovery before the effective date of the Final Rule of the price of affiliate fuel purchases, the Commission can determine at that time how best to proceed. The Commission Orders PG&E's request for clarification, reconsideration and rehearing is hereby denied, as discussed in the body of this order. By the Commission. ( S E A L ) David P. Boergers, Secretary. [FR Doc. 98-31960 Filed 11-30-98; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P